I think the most important things to take out of this whole mess are -

1) the importance of conducting a proper investigation and looking at things from all sides - and letting the evidence decide what can be proved i.e. if there was an intent to injure program maybe find one play that shows an intent to injure rather than attributing causality to some random play which results in an injury and then running with it to the extend Goodell's slugs did.

2) don't go to FF if you have legal questions

I think the more important things we learned are

1) Fans will use semantics to defend their team. And even if the original accusations are justified, theyll try and use semantics to suggest they arent justified at all.

2) Dont go to FF if you need legal advice. But do take the time to listen to the actual lawyers that frequesnt the site when they explain due process. Dont assume you know more than they do because you read something on a fan website about something someone heard someone else say._________________
CK on the sig

I honestly think that Roger Godell has bit off more than he can chew here. This legal fight will head back to court where Roger will have to prove his case.

The Defamation lawsuit is a killer because it will force Goodell to defend his actions and reveal evidence that support the action. Evidence other than hearsay.

Roger should swallow his pride and cut some type of deal with Vilma. I can't see the NFL winning this battle.

You clearly don't understand the legal system, Goddell is a defendant, the burden of proof is on Vilma. Vilma has to prove that Goddell doesn't a) have the power to suspend players in the NFL for a pay to injury system (which he does) and that Goddell doesn't really believe that Vilma was part of the pay for injury system (which he does).

Defamation is probably the toughest suit in any situation to win. You have to show that the defendant either w/ malice, or reckless negligence lied in order to intentionaly negatively effect the perception of your character. With the technicality question being taken care of following the Burbank decision, there is little chance that this case ever even gets heard. The labor friendly judge the first time around admitted she didn't think she had the power to intervene, now there's even less of a chance.

Which is my point exactly. Jonathan Vilma has bank statements that go back 5 years. Goodell will need to prove that 10,000 was paid to a player or even drawn out of his bank. Which he will not be able to prove.

Goodell will try to prove that there was intent to injure players. But again it is evidence based on hearsay. Nothing concrete has been put for yet by Goodell. Other than a sign affadavit from Greg Williams.

The Commisioner even agreed to lessen the suspension of two other players involved in the scandal. He is feeling the pressure and that last thing he wants is for a court to hear to agree to listen to the matter.

What part of the "The burden of proof is on Vilma" don't you understand. Roger Goddell doesn't have to prove anything. The court will not decide Vilma's innocence or guilt. If the case isn't immediately dismissed as baseless following the clarification required by the burbank decision, then they will decide whether or not what Goddell did was w/in the bounds of the powers given to him by the CBA (It was) and whether Roger Goddell did knowingly w/ malice (bad intent), or reckless negligence (knowing but not caring) defame Vilma's character (make statements in public which are false, which would negatively effect reasonable public perception). Roger Goddell can sit back twiddle his thumbs, get up on the stand for 2 seconds and say "I truly believe Jonathan Vilma participated in the saints pay for injury system." and win the case. That's it, that's the only question that matters w/ regards to the defamation suit. Not whether or not there was a Saints pay for injury system, but whether or not Goddell believes that Vilma participated in one. He doesn't have to evidence, he doesn't have to prove it, he just has to BELIEVE it. That's how impossible of a suit a defamation suit is to win._________________2013 Bears Forum Mike Ditka Award Winner
2014 Adopt-A-Bear Alshon Jeffery

I think the most important things to take out of this whole mess are -

1) the importance of conducting a proper investigation and looking at things from all sides - and letting the evidence decide what can be proved i.e. if there was an intent to injure program maybe find one play that shows an intent to injure rather than attributing causality to some random play which results in an injury and then running with it to the extend Goodell's slugs did.

2) don't go to FF if you have legal questions

I think the more important things we learned are

1) Fans will use semantics to defend their team. And even if the original accusations are justified, theyll try and use semantics to suggest they arent justified at all.

2) Dont go to FF if you need legal advice. But do take the time to listen to the actual lawyers that frequesnt the site when they explain due process. Dont assume you know more than they do because you read something on a fan website about something someone heard someone else say.

I disagree. Everything you read on the internet is true. Take it from me. I'm a lawyer...

I honestly think that Roger Godell has bit off more than he can chew here. This legal fight will head back to court where Roger will have to prove his case.

The Defamation lawsuit is a killer because it will force Goodell to defend his actions and reveal evidence that support the action. Evidence other than hearsay.

Roger should swallow his pride and cut some type of deal with Vilma. I can't see the NFL winning this battle.

You clearly don't understand the legal system, Goddell is a defendant, the burden of proof is on Vilma. Vilma has to prove that Goddell doesn't a) have the power to suspend players in the NFL for a pay to injury system (which he does) and that Goddell doesn't really believe that Vilma was part of the pay for injury system (which he does).

Defamation is probably the toughest suit in any situation to win. You have to show that the defendant either w/ malice, or reckless negligence lied in order to intentionaly negatively effect the perception of your character. With the technicality question being taken care of following the Burbank decision, there is little chance that this case ever even gets heard. The labor friendly judge the first time around admitted she didn't think she had the power to intervene, now there's even less of a chance.

Which is my point exactly. Jonathan Vilma has bank statements that go back 5 years. Goodell will need to prove that 10,000 was paid to a player or even drawn out of his bank. Which he will not be able to prove.

Goodell will try to prove that there was intent to injure players. But again it is evidence based on hearsay. Nothing concrete has been put for yet by Goodell. Other than a sign affadavit from Greg Williams.

The Commisioner even agreed to lessen the suspension of two other players involved in the scandal. He is feeling the pressure and that last thing he wants is for a court to hear to agree to listen to the matter.

Your point is exactly what? You still haven't shown that you understand the situation. Jon Vilma could have bank statements going back to his birth, it doesn't matter. Unless he can account for every penny he has ever earned and how he spent/invested/borrowed/saved all of it, it doesn't prove he (a wealthy individual) didn't have $10,000 to pay towards a bounty. Roger Goodell doesn't have to prove anything, it's a defamation suit against him brought on by Vilma. Vilma has to prove Goodell is guilty of lying with malice or reckless negligence (as Superman(DH23) said). That is, if this case even sees the inside of a courtroom; it's likely to be dismissed before then.

You just said it right there. Reckless negligence!!! When false information is released that damages a person reputation, the individual or individuals involved can be held liable for Defamation of Character.

Goodell released information about Vilma's involvement to the media without concrete evidence to support the fact. That is defamation because Roger Goodell released information that was harmful to Vilma reputation based on hearsay.

Vilma' s lawyers will exploit the lack of evidence other than Greg Williams hearsay. And Once again Goodell will have to attempt to show concrete evidence that Vilma paid money to a teammate to have another player injured. I brought up the bank statements because that is one way Vilma can prove himself. No one can take 10,000 out of the bank unless you sign documents. So where did this 10,000 dollars magically come from.

A bank statement cannot prove everything but where is Goodell's concrete proof that such a transaction between Vilma and a teammate took place? A question nobody has an answer for.

Bottom line Goodell is trying to be a cowboy an enforcer of rules but I hope this one bites in him his a$$. Absolute power will always corrupt._________________The Best that ever did it

I honestly think that Roger Godell has bit off more than he can chew here. This legal fight will head back to court where Roger will have to prove his case.

The Defamation lawsuit is a killer because it will force Goodell to defend his actions and reveal evidence that support the action. Evidence other than hearsay.

Roger should swallow his pride and cut some type of deal with Vilma. I can't see the NFL winning this battle.

You clearly don't understand the legal system, Goddell is a defendant, the burden of proof is on Vilma. Vilma has to prove that Goddell doesn't a) have the power to suspend players in the NFL for a pay to injury system (which he does) and that Goddell doesn't really believe that Vilma was part of the pay for injury system (which he does).

Defamation is probably the toughest suit in any situation to win. You have to show that the defendant either w/ malice, or reckless negligence lied in order to intentionaly negatively effect the perception of your character. With the technicality question being taken care of following the Burbank decision, there is little chance that this case ever even gets heard. The labor friendly judge the first time around admitted she didn't think she had the power to intervene, now there's even less of a chance.

Which is my point exactly. Jonathan Vilma has bank statements that go back 5 years. Goodell will need to prove that 10,000 was paid to a player or even drawn out of his bank. Which he will not be able to prove.

Goodell will try to prove that there was intent to injure players. But again it is evidence based on hearsay. Nothing concrete has been put for yet by Goodell. Other than a sign affadavit from Greg Williams.

The Commisioner even agreed to lessen the suspension of two other players involved in the scandal. He is feeling the pressure and that last thing he wants is for a court to hear to agree to listen to the matter.

Your point is exactly what? You still haven't shown that you understand the situation. Jon Vilma could have bank statements going back to his birth, it doesn't matter. Unless he can account for every penny he has ever earned and how he spent/invested/borrowed/saved all of it, it doesn't prove he (a wealthy individual) didn't have $10,000 to pay towards a bounty. Roger Goodell doesn't have to prove anything, it's a defamation suit against him brought on by Vilma. Vilma has to prove Goodell is guilty of lying with malice or reckless negligence (as Superman(DH23) said). That is, if this case even sees the inside of a courtroom; it's likely to be dismissed before then.

You just said it right there. Reckless negligence!!!
How can Goodell release information about Vilma's involvement to the media without concrete evidence to support the fact. That is defamation because Roger Goodell released information that was harmful to Vilma reputation based on hearsay.

Vilma' s lawyers will exploit the lack of evidence other than Greg Williams hearsay. And Once again Goodell will have to attempt to show concrete evidence that Vilma paid money to a teammate to have another player injured. I brought up the bank statements because that is one way Vilma can prove himself. No one can take 10,000 out of the bank unless you sign documents. So where did this 10,000 dollars magically come from.

A bank statement cannot prove everything but where is Goodell's concrete proof that such a transaction between Vilma and a teammate took place? A question nobody has an answer for.

Bottom line Goodell is trying to be a cowboy an enforcer of rules but I hope this one bites in him his a$$. Absolute power will always corrupt.

Goddell doesn't have to have proof, he just has to BELIEVE it. That's what you don't understand. I can write a 1000 word post detailing how TylerDouglas eats kittens, kicks puppies, and starves children for sport. That post could negatively effect a reasonable man's perception of Tyler's character, but as long as I BELIEVE it to be true its not defamation.

Reckless negligence has nothing to do w/ hearsay (which btw you don't know what hearsay is either, hearsay is hearing from a 3rd party what the 1st party said, not hearing directly from the 1st party themselves. Somebody can testify what they heard somebody say, but not what they heard what somebody said someone else say). Reckless negligence is I described, knowing but not caring. Vilma would have to show that the evidence showed he was not involved in a pay for injury system, not that Goddell didn't have concrete evidence, that not only was there no evidence, but evidence against it. That would be reckless negligence. And again they would have to prove Goddell doesn't BELIEVE that Vilma was involved in a pay for injury program. Ask any lawyer worth their salt and they'll tell you you can't win a defamation lawsuit, it's pointless. It's strictly a PR move by Vilma to try and win in the court of public perception. The fact is that Vilma takes a huge risk if the case ever makes it to court, b/c he then goes under oath, and if the NFL has concrete proof that he participated in a pay for injury system (which could be as simple as the film recorded by the documentary film maker who witnessed the payouts as a guest of Scott Fujita) Vilma could go to jail for perjury.

As for the other aspect of the suit, claiming Goddell doesn't have the power to suspend, even if that case makes it in front of a judge (highly unlikely) and if that judge rules in Vilma's favor (even less likely) it would immediately get overturned on appeal, b/c the appellate court has ruled very consistently that collectively bargained issues are not subject to the courts jurisdiction (see Maurice Clarett case)_________________2013 Bears Forum Mike Ditka Award Winner
2014 Adopt-A-Bear Alshon Jeffery